Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

View Detail

A Warm And Fuzzy Sunday Story

A Warm And Fuzzy Sunday Story

I try to make Sunday my day to feel good towards my fellow man and think pleasant thoughts about how America is such a wonderful place to live for people of all races, creeds, national origins and sexes. So imagine the surge of good Christian joy I felt when I read that ICE and HHS now have a policy of providing free hormone therapy for transgender illegal immigrants in their custody awaiting deportation proceedings.

Ya can’t make this stuff up. It reminded me of the jokes about famous early transgender icon George Jorgensen, who traveled to Sweden, had surgery, and returned as Christine Jorgensen. “He went abroad, and came back a broad.” OK, it was crude, but it was funny. In our current situation, the illegals in custody came to America part-way through their “gender reassignment,” and ICE (under orders from HHS Secretary Napolitano) will make sure that nature doesn’t intervene and reverse the process.

The HHS/ICE manual states: “All illegal alien detainees shall be screened by a specially trained detention officer within 12 hours of their arrival at the detention facility.” The operations manual specifically states that the "screening shall ... inquire into a transgender detainee's gender self-identification and history of transition-related care, when a detainee self-identifies as transgender." In the event that the detainee is found to be taking sex-change hormone drugs, ICE shall continue the treatment at no charge to the detainee.

That’s comforting. We wouldn’t want Juanita morphing back into Juan while awaiting deportation, now would we? As the Democrats would say, “leaving transgenders helpless while in custody is part of the Republican war on [almost-] women.” Nearly all of the detainees undergoing treatment are male to female “reassignments,” though a few female to male types have shown up as well, prompting Chaz Bono to wonder if they’d like to dance with the stars.

The manual goes on to state: “Transgender detainees who were already receiving hormone therapy when taken into ICE custody shall have continued access. All transgender detainees shall have access to mental health care, and other transgender-related health care and medication based on medical need. Treatment shall follow accepted guidelines regarding medically necessary transition-related care.” Nobody at ICE or HHS is allowed to suggest that “transition” is a choice, not a right, and therefore should not be paid for by the taxpayers and performed by the government.

It is also comforting to know that as part of the program, ICE must also provide pregnancy counseling and support for pregnant female illegals, including routine and extraordinary prenatal care, adoption counseling, post-partum follow-up, and lactation services. This is a situation we don’t often see. The federal government encouraging live birth rather than abortion.

But fear not, abortion services are also provided, including a trip to a local hospital for a free (in other words, taxpayer-funded) abortion if the fetus is the result of rape or incest, or to protect the physical survival of the mother. Now why an illegal immigrant would want to abort or give up an anchor baby born on US soil is utterly beyond me. It’s her best guarantee of being allowed to remain in the country.

For the illegals, unlike Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, the ICE/HHS emphasis is on bringing the baby to full term, providing a healthy delivery, and keeping the baby. The manual allows for easy and free abortion, but objects to what conservatives have tried to provide for American citizens when the mother is making a choice. “In this instance, or in a situation where a female detainee opts to fund the termination of her pregnancy, ICE shall arrange for transportation at no cost to the detainee for the medical appointment and for access to religious counseling, and non-directive (impartial) medical resources and social counseling, to include outside social services or women’s community resource groups.”

So rest well tonight. The gummint is on the job, providing services for future drag show stars and plantation Democrats.

I try to make Sunday my day to feel good towards my fellow man and think pleasant thoughts about how America is such a wonderful place to live for people of all races, creeds, national origins and sexes. So imagine the surge of good Christian joy I felt when I read that ICE and HHS now have a policy of providing free hormone therapy for transgender illegal immigrants in their custody awaiting deportation proceedings.

Ya can’t make this stuff up. It reminded me of the jokes about famous early transgender icon George Jorgensen, who traveled to Sweden, had surgery, and returned as Christine Jorgensen. “He went abroad, and came back a broad.” OK, it was crude, but it was funny. In our current situation, the illegals in custody came to America part-way through their “gender reassignment,” and ICE (under orders from HHS Secretary Napolitano) will make sure that nature doesn’t intervene and reverse the process.

The HHS/ICE manual states: “All illegal alien detainees shall be screened by a specially trained detention officer within 12 hours of their arrival at the detention facility.” The operations manual specifically states that the "screening shall ... inquire into a transgender detainee's gender self-identification and history of transition-related care, when a detainee self-identifies as transgender." In the event that the detainee is found to be taking sex-change hormone drugs, ICE shall continue the treatment at no charge to the detainee.

That’s comforting. We wouldn’t want Juanita morphing back into Juan while awaiting deportation, now would we? As the Democrats would say, “leaving transgenders helpless while in custody is part of the Republican war on [almost-] women.” Nearly all of the detainees undergoing treatment are male to female “reassignments,” though a few female to male types have shown up as well, prompting Chaz Bono to wonder if they’d like to dance with the stars.

The manual goes on to state: “Transgender detainees who were already receiving hormone therapy when taken into ICE custody shall have continued access. All transgender detainees shall have access to mental health care, and other transgender-related health care and medication based on medical need. Treatment shall follow accepted guidelines regarding medically necessary transition-related care.” Nobody at ICE or HHS is allowed to suggest that “transition” is a choice, not a right, and therefore should not be paid for by the taxpayers and performed by the government.

It is also comforting to know that as part of the program, ICE must also provide pregnancy counseling and support for pregnant female illegals, including routine and extraordinary prenatal care, adoption counseling, post-partum follow-up, and lactation services. This is a situation we don’t often see. The federal government encouraging live birth rather than abortion.

But fear not, abortion services are also provided, including a trip to a local hospital for a free (in other words, taxpayer-funded) abortion if the fetus is the result of rape or incest, or to protect the physical survival of the mother. Now why an illegal immigrant would want to abort or give up an anchor baby born on US soil is utterly beyond me. It’s her best guarantee of being allowed to remain in the country.

For the illegals, unlike Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, the ICE/HHS emphasis is on bringing the baby to full term, providing a healthy delivery, and keeping the baby. The manual allows for easy and free abortion, but objects to what conservatives have tried to provide for American citizens when the mother is making a choice. “In this instance, or in a situation where a female detainee opts to fund the termination of her pregnancy, ICE shall arrange for transportation at no cost to the detainee for the medical appointment and for access to religious counseling, and non-directive (impartial) medical resources and social counseling, to include outside social services or women’s community resource groups.”

So rest well tonight. The gummint is on the job, providing services for future drag show stars and plantation Democrats.

A Warm And Fuzzy Sunday Story

View Detail

Y'All Come! Si Se Puede!

Y'All Come! Si Se Puede!

At the end of the Bush administration and for the first few months of the Obama administration, illegal immigration from Mexico was on a downward spiral. It was a combination of better border enforcement and the calamitous downturn in the American economy. Those illegals who came here for work began to realize jobs were few and far between. Fewer illegals came, many returned home.

Yet with little change in the economy, the numbers are creeping back up. If jobs aren’t the reason for the increases, something else must be. The biggest reason is the illegal-friendly Obama administration and the Democratic Party’s pandering to Hispanic voters. The administration has dodged or reinterpreted Congressional action to set up a lengthy series of rules which make crossing the border illegally easier and staying less uncomfortable. What it couldn’t get in Congress with the proposed comprehensive immigration reform (aka “amnesty”) and the Dream Act it is accomplishing administratively and bureaucratically.

The administration talks about its achievements in deporting illegals, but the record hardly supports the claim. While talking deportation numbers with one side of his mouth, President Obama talks “prosecutorial discretion” out of the other side. Under current law, deported illegal immigrants must remain outside of the United States for a minimum of three years before returning under some legal plan. The administration has acted to change that rule using a “hardship” exception. If the illegal already has legal relatives living in the United States, he can claim his absence would pose a hardship for the family. It’s an Alice in Wonderland kind of reasoning, but you can bet that immigration authorities will find the exception nearly every time as long as this administration remains in power.

Another new rule imposed is that once caught, a large majority of illegals who have not run up a criminal record will go to the end of the deportation line. And while remaining in the country they can build up “longevity credits” putting them closer to the magic legalization goal. In major cities, where most illegals end up, this will mean a large number of very dangerous people being allowed to stay. Most of America’s big city immigration magnets are “sanctuary cities,” or cities so overwhelmed by crime that they simply can’t keep up. In sanctuary cities, criminal activity is not reported to the federal authorities unless there has been a conviction. In San Francisco, youthful offenders are rarely reported at all, and adults are reported only after being convicted of major violent felonies.

And then there’s the simple issue that if you can’t get in through the door, sneak in through the window. The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2011 only 15% of the border with Mexico was under full Border Patrol control. Another 44% is not under full control, but is counted as being under “operational” control. That means that 41% of the border is under minimal or no control. That’s about 800 miles of unprotected border. That would be bad enough. But when individual states have attempted to assist the federal government in enforcing border control, the feds have either ignored their efforts or sued the states for interfering in a federal prerogative.

Arizona has been a primary target of administration ire. While the state is losing $2.7 billion in enforcement and public services losses during the period from 2009 to the present, it has been the whipping boy for the Obama administration for simply passing legislation which is designed to do the job the feds either can’t or won’t do. Yet the Arizona statutes take no power from nor do they create parallel immigration power with the federal government. They simply create the mechanism by which the state can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.

Still, the Obama administration felt it wasn’t doing enough to support illegal immigration and fast-track legalization. It remedied that lack by appointing immigration enthusiast Andrew Lorenz-Strait to the post of public advocate for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Another czar. And it’s the first time ever that an administration of either party has created a position which essentially advocates for illegals. The very agency charged with the enforcement of immigration law will effectively have a man who will act as a taxpayer-funded lobbyist for illegals.

Lorenz-Strait previously advocated for cuts to the ICE budget of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program which helps states cover the cost of jailing illegal immigrants. The President’s crazed budget announced just after his State of the Union address includes this cut—to the tune of $170 million. Lorenz-Strait is off to a good start.

The pandering appears to be paying off. Obama won about 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and his reelection campaign committee is predicting that number could increase to 73% in 2012. I think that’s an exercise in radical optimism, but surely the pandering isn’t hurting his popularity among Hispanic voters.

Immigration will not be the big issue of the 2012 campaign, but it can’t be ignored. Any Republican presidential candidate is going to need good answers to questions about immigration. A “get ‘em out now” approach may appeal to many nativists, but it could be utter disaster in the general election. Comprehensive immigration reform is an important issue, but the Obama administration will try to paint anything short of amnesty as racism and jingoism. It must be addressed, but in realistic and humane terms. It is quite possible to reassure Hispanic voters without caving in to the open borders crowd.

At the end of the Bush administration and for the first few months of the Obama administration, illegal immigration from Mexico was on a downward spiral. It was a combination of better border enforcement and the calamitous downturn in the American economy. Those illegals who came here for work began to realize jobs were few and far between. Fewer illegals came, many returned home.

Yet with little change in the economy, the numbers are creeping back up. If jobs aren’t the reason for the increases, something else must be. The biggest reason is the illegal-friendly Obama administration and the Democratic Party’s pandering to Hispanic voters. The administration has dodged or reinterpreted Congressional action to set up a lengthy series of rules which make crossing the border illegally easier and staying less uncomfortable. What it couldn’t get in Congress with the proposed comprehensive immigration reform (aka “amnesty”) and the Dream Act it is accomplishing administratively and bureaucratically.

The administration talks about its achievements in deporting illegals, but the record hardly supports the claim. While talking deportation numbers with one side of his mouth, President Obama talks “prosecutorial discretion” out of the other side. Under current law, deported illegal immigrants must remain outside of the United States for a minimum of three years before returning under some legal plan. The administration has acted to change that rule using a “hardship” exception. If the illegal already has legal relatives living in the United States, he can claim his absence would pose a hardship for the family. It’s an Alice in Wonderland kind of reasoning, but you can bet that immigration authorities will find the exception nearly every time as long as this administration remains in power.

Another new rule imposed is that once caught, a large majority of illegals who have not run up a criminal record will go to the end of the deportation line. And while remaining in the country they can build up “longevity credits” putting them closer to the magic legalization goal. In major cities, where most illegals end up, this will mean a large number of very dangerous people being allowed to stay. Most of America’s big city immigration magnets are “sanctuary cities,” or cities so overwhelmed by crime that they simply can’t keep up. In sanctuary cities, criminal activity is not reported to the federal authorities unless there has been a conviction. In San Francisco, youthful offenders are rarely reported at all, and adults are reported only after being convicted of major violent felonies.

And then there’s the simple issue that if you can’t get in through the door, sneak in through the window. The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2011 only 15% of the border with Mexico was under full Border Patrol control. Another 44% is not under full control, but is counted as being under “operational” control. That means that 41% of the border is under minimal or no control. That’s about 800 miles of unprotected border. That would be bad enough. But when individual states have attempted to assist the federal government in enforcing border control, the feds have either ignored their efforts or sued the states for interfering in a federal prerogative.

Arizona has been a primary target of administration ire. While the state is losing $2.7 billion in enforcement and public services losses during the period from 2009 to the present, it has been the whipping boy for the Obama administration for simply passing legislation which is designed to do the job the feds either can’t or won’t do. Yet the Arizona statutes take no power from nor do they create parallel immigration power with the federal government. They simply create the mechanism by which the state can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.

Still, the Obama administration felt it wasn’t doing enough to support illegal immigration and fast-track legalization. It remedied that lack by appointing immigration enthusiast Andrew Lorenz-Strait to the post of public advocate for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Another czar. And it’s the first time ever that an administration of either party has created a position which essentially advocates for illegals. The very agency charged with the enforcement of immigration law will effectively have a man who will act as a taxpayer-funded lobbyist for illegals.

Lorenz-Strait previously advocated for cuts to the ICE budget of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program which helps states cover the cost of jailing illegal immigrants. The President’s crazed budget announced just after his State of the Union address includes this cut—to the tune of $170 million. Lorenz-Strait is off to a good start.

The pandering appears to be paying off. Obama won about 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and his reelection campaign committee is predicting that number could increase to 73% in 2012. I think that’s an exercise in radical optimism, but surely the pandering isn’t hurting his popularity among Hispanic voters.

Immigration will not be the big issue of the 2012 campaign, but it can’t be ignored. Any Republican presidential candidate is going to need good answers to questions about immigration. A “get ‘em out now” approach may appeal to many nativists, but it could be utter disaster in the general election. Comprehensive immigration reform is an important issue, but the Obama administration will try to paint anything short of amnesty as racism and jingoism. It must be addressed, but in realistic and humane terms. It is quite possible to reassure Hispanic voters without caving in to the open borders crowd.

Y'All Come! Si Se Puede!

View Detail

You're Not The Boss Of Me

You're Not The Boss Of Me

In some ways, I guess I’ve enjoyed the spectacle of a pseudo-intellectual, gussied-up, pretentious Chicago politician trying to pass himself off as a sophisticated man for all seasons. The man is flawless, incapable of making a mistake. He has even managed to convince a large segment of the American public that he is unflappable and tolerant of criticism. He proved otherwise this past Wednesday in Arizona.

On that day, the sweet-tempered, the ever-smiling president landed in Arizona and exposed himself for the ill-tempered and thin-skinned creature he really is. He was greeted by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who is not known as being a fan of The One. In fact, the confrontation turned into an Obama review of Brewer’s book Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Borders. The governor was there in her official capacity as state greeter, but she was also there to plead with the president for more border security.

Unfortunately for Brewer, Obama knew that she had written some unkind words about He Who Cannot Be Criticized. The conversation, largely out of earshot of the public and press and beneath the wings of Air Force One, was obviously heated, complete with some very visible finger-wagging on both sides. After a short exchange, the president turned his back on the governor and stormed off like a child who lost a playground match and grabbed his marbles and left.

Before he was able to get to a refreshed TelePrompter, Obama let it be known that the governor had not “treated him cordially.” Well, you have to admit, she forgot to kiss his ring as they approached each other. It was obvious that he knows that he is King of America and she is merely a provincial governor. One does not lecture the king of kings, nor write a memoir that does not sing his praises.

The governor says that before she could start a conversation, Obama stated that he was disturbed about her book. She never got to make the case for more border security. She asked him if he had read the book, but after responding that he had read “an excerpt” and stating categorically that she had committed lese majeste, he walked away from her while she was still in mid-sentence attempting to respond.

So what did the mainstream media pick up on? Pictures of Brewer’s “disrespectful finger-pointing.” The best they could say is that if she didn’t respect the man, she should at least respect the office. Well, the man has sullied the office, so I think she can be at least partially forgiven if she didn’t do proper obeisance. She is an independently-elected leader of a sovereign state, equally deserving respect which he did not grant her. Governors are servants of the people of their states, not subordinates of the emperor. If she had given him the finger instead of pointing one at him, he might have been justified in feeling he had not gotten due respect for his office.

Governors are heads of state as much as the president, and they are not in the military where his position as commander-in-chief might make the man/office mantra appropriate. The governor was there as head of her government to seek help in stopping the massive flow of illegal immigration, crime, and drug importing on the border between Mexico and Arizona. The president was there to campaign for re-election and to ignore his administration’s Mexico-US gun-running operation. Which deserves more respect?

This kind of regal displeasure treatment of his “inferiors” is getting to be a habit with Obama. After being greeted by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Obama stormed off within less than half a minute when Perry raised the issue of border security. He fumed and fretted publicly after Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana dared to write the president a letter asking for some genuine work instead of talk during the Gulf oil spill disaster. He actually called Jindal a “whiner” for asking for emergency food programs while the residents of the gulf recovered.

Obama is completely incapable of understanding federalism. He sees the states as branches of the national government and governors as his lieutenants. Any word of disagreement by one of those lieutenants must be treated as disrespect for the glorious leader and rank insubordination. Well, this god has feet of clay and this emperor has no clothes (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?). Obama deserves the title of King of Cool about as much as Rosie O’Donnell deserved the title of Queen of Nice.

Update Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Now Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Joe Madison, MSNBC and a raft of left wing talk-show hosts have declared that Brewer's actions were not only disrespectful, but racist. One says that Brewer's actions were the natural fear that white women have of black men. The rest are absolutely convinced that Brewer would never had behaved this way if the president were white. One black contributor on Fox News says that she doesn't believe Brewer is a racist, but her actions are typical of white behavior toward blacks. "Typical white woman" anyone?

In some ways, I guess I’ve enjoyed the spectacle of a pseudo-intellectual, gussied-up, pretentious Chicago politician trying to pass himself off as a sophisticated man for all seasons. The man is flawless, incapable of making a mistake. He has even managed to convince a large segment of the American public that he is unflappable and tolerant of criticism. He proved otherwise this past Wednesday in Arizona.

On that day, the sweet-tempered, the ever-smiling president landed in Arizona and exposed himself for the ill-tempered and thin-skinned creature he really is. He was greeted by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who is not known as being a fan of The One. In fact, the confrontation turned into an Obama review of Brewer’s book Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Borders. The governor was there in her official capacity as state greeter, but she was also there to plead with the president for more border security.

Unfortunately for Brewer, Obama knew that she had written some unkind words about He Who Cannot Be Criticized. The conversation, largely out of earshot of the public and press and beneath the wings of Air Force One, was obviously heated, complete with some very visible finger-wagging on both sides. After a short exchange, the president turned his back on the governor and stormed off like a child who lost a playground match and grabbed his marbles and left.

Before he was able to get to a refreshed TelePrompter, Obama let it be known that the governor had not “treated him cordially.” Well, you have to admit, she forgot to kiss his ring as they approached each other. It was obvious that he knows that he is King of America and she is merely a provincial governor. One does not lecture the king of kings, nor write a memoir that does not sing his praises.

The governor says that before she could start a conversation, Obama stated that he was disturbed about her book. She never got to make the case for more border security. She asked him if he had read the book, but after responding that he had read “an excerpt” and stating categorically that she had committed lese majeste, he walked away from her while she was still in mid-sentence attempting to respond.

So what did the mainstream media pick up on? Pictures of Brewer’s “disrespectful finger-pointing.” The best they could say is that if she didn’t respect the man, she should at least respect the office. Well, the man has sullied the office, so I think she can be at least partially forgiven if she didn’t do proper obeisance. She is an independently-elected leader of a sovereign state, equally deserving respect which he did not grant her. Governors are servants of the people of their states, not subordinates of the emperor. If she had given him the finger instead of pointing one at him, he might have been justified in feeling he had not gotten due respect for his office.

Governors are heads of state as much as the president, and they are not in the military where his position as commander-in-chief might make the man/office mantra appropriate. The governor was there as head of her government to seek help in stopping the massive flow of illegal immigration, crime, and drug importing on the border between Mexico and Arizona. The president was there to campaign for re-election and to ignore his administration’s Mexico-US gun-running operation. Which deserves more respect?

This kind of regal displeasure treatment of his “inferiors” is getting to be a habit with Obama. After being greeted by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Obama stormed off within less than half a minute when Perry raised the issue of border security. He fumed and fretted publicly after Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana dared to write the president a letter asking for some genuine work instead of talk during the Gulf oil spill disaster. He actually called Jindal a “whiner” for asking for emergency food programs while the residents of the gulf recovered.

Obama is completely incapable of understanding federalism. He sees the states as branches of the national government and governors as his lieutenants. Any word of disagreement by one of those lieutenants must be treated as disrespect for the glorious leader and rank insubordination. Well, this god has feet of clay and this emperor has no clothes (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?). Obama deserves the title of King of Cool about as much as Rosie O’Donnell deserved the title of Queen of Nice.

Update Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Now Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Joe Madison, MSNBC and a raft of left wing talk-show hosts have declared that Brewer's actions were not only disrespectful, but racist. One says that Brewer's actions were the natural fear that white women have of black men. The rest are absolutely convinced that Brewer would never had behaved this way if the president were white. One black contributor on Fox News says that she doesn't believe Brewer is a racist, but her actions are typical of white behavior toward blacks. "Typical white woman" anyone?

You're Not The Boss Of Me

View Detail

Kagan Sets Up The Sucker Punch

Kagan Sets Up The Sucker Punch

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the upcoming appeal of the State of Arizona challenging the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down the major enforcement provisions of Arizona's tough immigration enforcement law. She has done the right and ethical thing.

Simply put, Arizona's law included among other things a provision that during the course of a lawful stop or arrest, the police officer could inquire into the individual's immigration status if he had a reasonable suspicion that the person was in the country illegally. The police could then hold the suspect pending determination of his immigration status. If the person turned out to be in the United States illegally, the Arizona authorities would then turn the suspect over to the federal immigration authorities. The Obama administration successfully took Arizona to court, claiming that this was unconstitutional interference with the federal government's sole authority over immigration.

Arizona argued unsuccessfully that it had a compelling state interest in protecting its lawful citizens, and that the new law merely provided a means by which the federal authorities could be made aware of an illegal immigrant by use of ordinary and established state and local police procedures. The law did seem to grant power to the state to establish its own rules on immigration, and did provide for certain non-investigatory detention beyond the initial inquiry into the person's immigration status. The law did not allow or require the state to take any further action against the detainee such as deporting him from the United States, but there were some criminal sanctions for being present in Arizona illegally. Arizona argued that its law merely reported illegal immigration, while the Obama administration argued that it regulated immigration, a solely federal prerogative.

The law does make it a crime for an undocumented worker to be present in the state. And the law makes it a crime to fail to register with the federal government or attempt to take work or hold a job without government authorization. Unlike the "reasonable suspicion" provision, these provisions do seem to skate very close to the edge of federal supremacy. In any event, all the provisions mentioned were stricken by the federal judge, and his ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort these provisions out.

A federal judge and ultimately the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found against Arizona. Arizona appealed, and the US Supreme Court has now granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case). Justice Kagan immediately recused herself and made a public statement as to why she was doing so. As a senior attorney at the Justice Department (Solicitor General), she had played a major role in the early litigation against the Arizona law. Good for her. She did the right thing. Why she did the right thing may yet turn out not to be quite so honorable.

Caution: What follows is comprised largely of my opinions about anyone or anything having to do with the Obama administration, combined with a healthy dollop of paranoia and suspicion. I'm not stating anything except the jurisdictional matters as fact, and if this turns out to be a debate over Kagan's intentions versus my wariness, that would be a good thing.

I'm sure that every one of you is sophisticated enough to know that the state challenges to Obamacare will be wending their way to the Supreme Court. Different appellate districts have made diametrically opposite decisions, and it's up to the Supreme Court to resolve them. Mounting evidence shows that Justice Kagan was deeply involved in the preparation and final versions of Obamacare while she was Obama's Solicitor General. In fact, within just a few days before the passage of Obamacare, Kagan wrote to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that a lawsuit was being prepared to block the House from "deeming" the measure passed by a quirky procedural rule if it didn't get enough votes. She not only alerted them, but made suggestions as to how to defend against the lawsuit.

She even went so far as to alert the Office of Legal Counsel of all the arguments which were being prepared against the procedural trick (by a former Tenth Circuit US Appeals Court judge who is now Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University). During her confirmation proceedings, Kagan was asked for a written response to the following question posed by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee:

"Have you ever been asked about your opinion or offered any view or comments on the underlying or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including, but not limited to Pub. L No. 111-148 PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?" Kagan answered "no."

Kagan's early opinions of the efficacy of socialized medicine offered as a professor of law at Harvard (pictured) would not automatically require her to recuse herself from considering the Obamacare cases at the Supreme Court. Every professor of law (except possibly Barack Obama) has legal opinions. They'd be pretty dumb if they didn't. Most prominent law professors have written law review articles (again, except Barack Obama, editor of the Harvard Law Review). Those articles frequently go against current prevailing law. But those opinions are largely political abstract law in nature until they start coming down from the bench. So her early legal career was important to the process, but not necessarily to her ultimate confirmation.

So where am I going with this? From everything I've seen and read, Kagan's involvement in Obamacare was at least as deep as her involvement in the Arizona statute controversy and litigation. Her self-recusal from the Arizona case leads me to think that doing the right thing in that case was a red herring, designed to draw attention away from Kagan's personal views and actual involvement in the preparation of the Obamacare legislation.

She, her liberal Democratic friends and their errand boys in the mainstream media can now point out how upright, honest and ethical she is about not hearing cases in which she has been personally and professionally involved. When she refuses to recuse herself from the Obamacare decision, as I expect she will, they can all say "why look, she recused herself in the Arizona case, so if she doesn't recuse herself here, it's because her hands are clean and she is justified in hearing the matter."

Along with her "recusal credentials" she is likely to claim that if she has to recuse herself, the same should be required of Justice Clarence Thomas. Well, hooey. Thomas had no personal or professional involvement in passing or litigating Obamacare. His wife is an ardent anti-socialized medicine advocate. So what? She's not sitting on the bench, he is. And unlike Obama, Thomas does not allow his wife to make his decisions for him. Double red herring.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. But I suspect Kagan's self-recusal in the Arizona case is even more cynical. Sorry, folks, I just don't trust their phony good intentions. So, what do you think?

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the upcoming appeal of the State of Arizona challenging the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down the major enforcement provisions of Arizona's tough immigration enforcement law. She has done the right and ethical thing.

Simply put, Arizona's law included among other things a provision that during the course of a lawful stop or arrest, the police officer could inquire into the individual's immigration status if he had a reasonable suspicion that the person was in the country illegally. The police could then hold the suspect pending determination of his immigration status. If the person turned out to be in the United States illegally, the Arizona authorities would then turn the suspect over to the federal immigration authorities. The Obama administration successfully took Arizona to court, claiming that this was unconstitutional interference with the federal government's sole authority over immigration.

Arizona argued unsuccessfully that it had a compelling state interest in protecting its lawful citizens, and that the new law merely provided a means by which the federal authorities could be made aware of an illegal immigrant by use of ordinary and established state and local police procedures. The law did seem to grant power to the state to establish its own rules on immigration, and did provide for certain non-investigatory detention beyond the initial inquiry into the person's immigration status. The law did not allow or require the state to take any further action against the detainee such as deporting him from the United States, but there were some criminal sanctions for being present in Arizona illegally. Arizona argued that its law merely reported illegal immigration, while the Obama administration argued that it regulated immigration, a solely federal prerogative.

The law does make it a crime for an undocumented worker to be present in the state. And the law makes it a crime to fail to register with the federal government or attempt to take work or hold a job without government authorization. Unlike the "reasonable suspicion" provision, these provisions do seem to skate very close to the edge of federal supremacy. In any event, all the provisions mentioned were stricken by the federal judge, and his ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort these provisions out.

A federal judge and ultimately the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found against Arizona. Arizona appealed, and the US Supreme Court has now granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case). Justice Kagan immediately recused herself and made a public statement as to why she was doing so. As a senior attorney at the Justice Department (Solicitor General), she had played a major role in the early litigation against the Arizona law. Good for her. She did the right thing. Why she did the right thing may yet turn out not to be quite so honorable.

Caution: What follows is comprised largely of my opinions about anyone or anything having to do with the Obama administration, combined with a healthy dollop of paranoia and suspicion. I'm not stating anything except the jurisdictional matters as fact, and if this turns out to be a debate over Kagan's intentions versus my wariness, that would be a good thing.

I'm sure that every one of you is sophisticated enough to know that the state challenges to Obamacare will be wending their way to the Supreme Court. Different appellate districts have made diametrically opposite decisions, and it's up to the Supreme Court to resolve them. Mounting evidence shows that Justice Kagan was deeply involved in the preparation and final versions of Obamacare while she was Obama's Solicitor General. In fact, within just a few days before the passage of Obamacare, Kagan wrote to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that a lawsuit was being prepared to block the House from "deeming" the measure passed by a quirky procedural rule if it didn't get enough votes. She not only alerted them, but made suggestions as to how to defend against the lawsuit.

She even went so far as to alert the Office of Legal Counsel of all the arguments which were being prepared against the procedural trick (by a former Tenth Circuit US Appeals Court judge who is now Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University). During her confirmation proceedings, Kagan was asked for a written response to the following question posed by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee:

"Have you ever been asked about your opinion or offered any view or comments on the underlying or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including, but not limited to Pub. L No. 111-148 PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?" Kagan answered "no."

Kagan's early opinions of the efficacy of socialized medicine offered as a professor of law at Harvard (pictured) would not automatically require her to recuse herself from considering the Obamacare cases at the Supreme Court. Every professor of law (except possibly Barack Obama) has legal opinions. They'd be pretty dumb if they didn't. Most prominent law professors have written law review articles (again, except Barack Obama, editor of the Harvard Law Review). Those articles frequently go against current prevailing law. But those opinions are largely political abstract law in nature until they start coming down from the bench. So her early legal career was important to the process, but not necessarily to her ultimate confirmation.

So where am I going with this? From everything I've seen and read, Kagan's involvement in Obamacare was at least as deep as her involvement in the Arizona statute controversy and litigation. Her self-recusal from the Arizona case leads me to think that doing the right thing in that case was a red herring, designed to draw attention away from Kagan's personal views and actual involvement in the preparation of the Obamacare legislation.

She, her liberal Democratic friends and their errand boys in the mainstream media can now point out how upright, honest and ethical she is about not hearing cases in which she has been personally and professionally involved. When she refuses to recuse herself from the Obamacare decision, as I expect she will, they can all say "why look, she recused herself in the Arizona case, so if she doesn't recuse herself here, it's because her hands are clean and she is justified in hearing the matter."

Along with her "recusal credentials" she is likely to claim that if she has to recuse herself, the same should be required of Justice Clarence Thomas. Well, hooey. Thomas had no personal or professional involvement in passing or litigating Obamacare. His wife is an ardent anti-socialized medicine advocate. So what? She's not sitting on the bench, he is. And unlike Obama, Thomas does not allow his wife to make his decisions for him. Double red herring.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. But I suspect Kagan's self-recusal in the Arizona case is even more cynical. Sorry, folks, I just don't trust their phony good intentions. So, what do you think?

Kagan Sets Up The Sucker Punch

View Detail

Hispanics Foil Democratic Race Dreams

Hispanics Foil Democratic Race Dreams

You’ve all heard America is destined to become an Hispanic country, right? The Democrats are in fact counting on that to stay relevant. They’re hoping to get Hispanics to buy into racial identity politics and then vote exclusively for their race-hustling party. But there are three flaws with this plan.

Flaw One: Bad Demographics

The argument works like this: in 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority. But as I first mentioned in May of last year (LINK), there are serious flaws with this.

First, this assumes Hispanics are having huge numbers of children. The truth is that most of the population growth in Hispanic ranks has been the result of illegal immigration, not from births. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was pure illegal immigration. So it’s immigration that matters.

But illegal immigration can’t continue at this rate because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico accounts for most illegal immigrants. But Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 birth per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

Flaw Two: The Race Baiting Ain’t Working

But even beyond the pending illegal-immigrant-supply shortage, something interesting just happened with the last Census. To the race industry’s horror, “whites” suddenly jumped by 12.1 million people (to 223.6 million or 72% of the population). What could account for this?

What happened is the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as Hispanic went down 5% and the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as “white” increased 5%. Overall, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black.

What this means is that Hispanics are doing what the Irish, the Jews, the Polish, and everyone else who is now considered “white” did -- they are identifying with the larger group and trying to fit in. They are joining the melting pot. And American-born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.”

This is horrible news for the Democrats, because the whole idea behind racial identity politics is to make people think they are part of an oppressed group. If people see themselves as black, white, Hispanic, etc., then it’s easy to get them believing in group rights. But Hispanics aren’t buying it.

Flaw Three: Escape The Plantation

Finally, there have been a number of articles lately by shocked journalists who can’t understand where all these conservative blacks have come from? It turns out the racist Tea Party got them all elected. Oh my! In fact, these articles have pointed out that in each case where a black (or minority) candidate won a Republican primary, it was with Tea Party backing over an establishment Republican honkey.

In effect, genuine diversity has finally arrived on the right and it’s the Tea Party that caused it because. . . imagine this. . . Tea Party people vote for people whose ideas they like, not people whose color they like! The Democrats are shocked.

This is a huge step toward smashing the idea of racial identity politics in this country. As more and more conservative blacks, Asians, Indians and Hispanics get elected into office, the idea that you need to be a Democrat if you are one of these people will simply fall apart. And that will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Hispanic-America strategy.

You’ve all heard America is destined to become an Hispanic country, right? The Democrats are in fact counting on that to stay relevant. They’re hoping to get Hispanics to buy into racial identity politics and then vote exclusively for their race-hustling party. But there are three flaws with this plan.

Flaw One: Bad Demographics

The argument works like this: in 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority. But as I first mentioned in May of last year (LINK), there are serious flaws with this.

First, this assumes Hispanics are having huge numbers of children. The truth is that most of the population growth in Hispanic ranks has been the result of illegal immigration, not from births. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was pure illegal immigration. So it’s immigration that matters.

But illegal immigration can’t continue at this rate because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico accounts for most illegal immigrants. But Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 birth per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

Flaw Two: The Race Baiting Ain’t Working

But even beyond the pending illegal-immigrant-supply shortage, something interesting just happened with the last Census. To the race industry’s horror, “whites” suddenly jumped by 12.1 million people (to 223.6 million or 72% of the population). What could account for this?

What happened is the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as Hispanic went down 5% and the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as “white” increased 5%. Overall, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black.

What this means is that Hispanics are doing what the Irish, the Jews, the Polish, and everyone else who is now considered “white” did -- they are identifying with the larger group and trying to fit in. They are joining the melting pot. And American-born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.”

This is horrible news for the Democrats, because the whole idea behind racial identity politics is to make people think they are part of an oppressed group. If people see themselves as black, white, Hispanic, etc., then it’s easy to get them believing in group rights. But Hispanics aren’t buying it.

Flaw Three: Escape The Plantation

Finally, there have been a number of articles lately by shocked journalists who can’t understand where all these conservative blacks have come from? It turns out the racist Tea Party got them all elected. Oh my! In fact, these articles have pointed out that in each case where a black (or minority) candidate won a Republican primary, it was with Tea Party backing over an establishment Republican honkey.

In effect, genuine diversity has finally arrived on the right and it’s the Tea Party that caused it because. . . imagine this. . . Tea Party people vote for people whose ideas they like, not people whose color they like! The Democrats are shocked.

This is a huge step toward smashing the idea of racial identity politics in this country. As more and more conservative blacks, Asians, Indians and Hispanics get elected into office, the idea that you need to be a Democrat if you are one of these people will simply fall apart. And that will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Hispanic-America strategy.

Hispanics Foil Democratic Race Dreams

View Detail

California Does It Again

California Does It Again

California is one of the states suffering from a huge illegal immigrant problem. California Democrats generally refuse to admit that there is such a problem, or even such a thing as an illegal immigrant. But on those rare occasions when they do admit both, their focus is always on businesses which hire illegals rather than the illegals themselves.

They are at least partially wrong philosophically, but punishing employers who hire illegals and taking steps to prevent further illegal immigrant hiring are excellent ideas. Cut off the potential of employment and you eliminate one of the major sources of illegal immigration. The broadest and most effective way of doing this is E-Verify. Legislation is pending before Congress to establish nationwide mandates requiring employers to utilize E-Verify.

In California, fifteen cities and counties have enacted mandatory E-Verify since 2007. The governmental agencies instituted the requirement from as little as using it solely for city/county employees to revocation of business licenses for private employers who do not use E-Verify. The cities are Mission Viejo, Temecula, Murrieta, Riverside, Santa Maria, Lake Elsinore, Wildemar, Lancaster, Palmdale, San Clemente, Escondido, Menifee, Hemet, San Juan Capistrano, Hesperia, Norco, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Simi Valley. San Bernardino County is the only entity to require E-Verify on a county-wide bases.

In addition, six other cities have drafted legislation requiring E-Verify and were ready to vote. Then the boom fell. Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown and the open borders Democrats who run the state passed a statewide law prohibiting governmental agencies at any level from mandating E-Verify. After all, what's the point of being an illegal immigrant getting in-state tuition, grants and scholarships if you can't get a job after graduation because of E-Verify?

Ted Wegener, who played a major role in getting E-Verify passed for San Bernardino County, says: "It is very disappointing when you spend all the time, you go to your elected representatives and you get them to do something, and then at the higher level they squash you." Wegener's group, the Inland Empire Conservative Activists, was on its way toward getting E-Verify passed for Riverside and Orange Counties as well.

The open borders crowd reached down and pulled up its usual arguments. Sara Sadhwani of the California Immigrant Policy Center said "while a handful of cities in California and a handful of states across the country have moved to mandate the use of this kind of program, it's very misguided." In other words, an effective means of drastically reducing the incentive for errant employers to hire illegals is "misguided."

Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Sunnyvale), introduced the bill to halt E-Verify because he believes it is an unnecessary burden on business. I'd like to know what "business" he is referring to. The burden is making sure that the company has at least one person (who could easily be an already-existing employee) who has access to a computer and a minimal knowledge of how to use the Internet. There are costs of E-Verify that are minimal compared to the private background checks any diligent private employer would use to determine the immigration and criminal status of a potential employee. But that doesn't stop Fong: "It is costly, time-consuming. It's unfair for big businesses and definitely for small businesses. Why make a flawed system mandatory?" Well, I guess we wouldn't want to be unfair, would we?

Naturally the supporters of the bill cited examples of how the E-Verify system "often" misidentifies U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. And of course they pulled out a poster girl named Jessica St. Pierre who was allegedly fired from her job because her name was not correctly entered into the E-Verify system. Anecdotal evidence aside, E-Verify claims to have an error rate of about 1%. Independent agencies make it more like 6% and dropping as data banks are constantly updated and improved. The concept that legitimate employees are being denied employment willy-nilly because of E-Verify is about as believable as Barack Obama's claim that his mother died because of a lack of medical insurance coverage.

I simply find it hard to believe that any reputable employer would fire a good employee after an E-Verify notification without first thoroughly checking the employee's own proof. If the employee is in fact a legal immigrant or American citizen, that's easily proven, and the information can be sent off to DHS and E-Verify for correction. A valued employee is unlikely to lose a job permanently because a clerk at a computer somewhere made an entry error.

Beside the alleged "financial burden on business," there are other costs to be considered and weighed against it. How about the cost of Medicaid and welfare programs for illegal immigrants? How about the loss in state tax revenues resulting from employers who hire illegals and pay them "under the table?" How about the cost of jobs lost for American citizens and legal immigrants? For that matter, how about the human cost of allowing unscrupulous employers to hire illegals and pay them less than minimum or comparable wages while putting them into working conditions that no citizen or legal immigrant would tolerate?

Brian Ambrose, who is an analyst in the Murrieta city manager's office, is perfectly happy with the voiding of his city's E-Verify ordinance. Says Ambrose: "We have not received a single phone call [reporting illegal immigrant hiring]--we did not believe there was ever a problem with illegal immigration here in Murrieta." Who is this mysterious "we?" The city manager system frequently ends up with the city manager's office being at odds with both the citizens of the city involved, and often misguiding the city councils which pass the ordinances. Concurrence is not causation. A lack of phone calls could mean a great many things, including the likelihood that illegal immigrants facing E-Verify knew the jig was up and it was time to get out of Dodge before they got caught.

So now, it's up to Congress. The left won't like it, but if the bill requiring E-Verify nationwide is passed, they can't complain that the states are interfering with the fed's sole power over immigration matters. Not unexpectedly, the E-Verify bill in the House of Representatives is being advanced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). But I take pride in pointing out that the former mayor of Simi Valley and now longtime Republican Representative Elton Gallegly of California is the co-sponsor.

California is one of the states suffering from a huge illegal immigrant problem. California Democrats generally refuse to admit that there is such a problem, or even such a thing as an illegal immigrant. But on those rare occasions when they do admit both, their focus is always on businesses which hire illegals rather than the illegals themselves.

They are at least partially wrong philosophically, but punishing employers who hire illegals and taking steps to prevent further illegal immigrant hiring are excellent ideas. Cut off the potential of employment and you eliminate one of the major sources of illegal immigration. The broadest and most effective way of doing this is E-Verify. Legislation is pending before Congress to establish nationwide mandates requiring employers to utilize E-Verify.

In California, fifteen cities and counties have enacted mandatory E-Verify since 2007. The governmental agencies instituted the requirement from as little as using it solely for city/county employees to revocation of business licenses for private employers who do not use E-Verify. The cities are Mission Viejo, Temecula, Murrieta, Riverside, Santa Maria, Lake Elsinore, Wildemar, Lancaster, Palmdale, San Clemente, Escondido, Menifee, Hemet, San Juan Capistrano, Hesperia, Norco, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Simi Valley. San Bernardino County is the only entity to require E-Verify on a county-wide bases.

In addition, six other cities have drafted legislation requiring E-Verify and were ready to vote. Then the boom fell. Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown and the open borders Democrats who run the state passed a statewide law prohibiting governmental agencies at any level from mandating E-Verify. After all, what's the point of being an illegal immigrant getting in-state tuition, grants and scholarships if you can't get a job after graduation because of E-Verify?

Ted Wegener, who played a major role in getting E-Verify passed for San Bernardino County, says: "It is very disappointing when you spend all the time, you go to your elected representatives and you get them to do something, and then at the higher level they squash you." Wegener's group, the Inland Empire Conservative Activists, was on its way toward getting E-Verify passed for Riverside and Orange Counties as well.

The open borders crowd reached down and pulled up its usual arguments. Sara Sadhwani of the California Immigrant Policy Center said "while a handful of cities in California and a handful of states across the country have moved to mandate the use of this kind of program, it's very misguided." In other words, an effective means of drastically reducing the incentive for errant employers to hire illegals is "misguided."

Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Sunnyvale), introduced the bill to halt E-Verify because he believes it is an unnecessary burden on business. I'd like to know what "business" he is referring to. The burden is making sure that the company has at least one person (who could easily be an already-existing employee) who has access to a computer and a minimal knowledge of how to use the Internet. There are costs of E-Verify that are minimal compared to the private background checks any diligent private employer would use to determine the immigration and criminal status of a potential employee. But that doesn't stop Fong: "It is costly, time-consuming. It's unfair for big businesses and definitely for small businesses. Why make a flawed system mandatory?" Well, I guess we wouldn't want to be unfair, would we?

Naturally the supporters of the bill cited examples of how the E-Verify system "often" misidentifies U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. And of course they pulled out a poster girl named Jessica St. Pierre who was allegedly fired from her job because her name was not correctly entered into the E-Verify system. Anecdotal evidence aside, E-Verify claims to have an error rate of about 1%. Independent agencies make it more like 6% and dropping as data banks are constantly updated and improved. The concept that legitimate employees are being denied employment willy-nilly because of E-Verify is about as believable as Barack Obama's claim that his mother died because of a lack of medical insurance coverage.

I simply find it hard to believe that any reputable employer would fire a good employee after an E-Verify notification without first thoroughly checking the employee's own proof. If the employee is in fact a legal immigrant or American citizen, that's easily proven, and the information can be sent off to DHS and E-Verify for correction. A valued employee is unlikely to lose a job permanently because a clerk at a computer somewhere made an entry error.

Beside the alleged "financial burden on business," there are other costs to be considered and weighed against it. How about the cost of Medicaid and welfare programs for illegal immigrants? How about the loss in state tax revenues resulting from employers who hire illegals and pay them "under the table?" How about the cost of jobs lost for American citizens and legal immigrants? For that matter, how about the human cost of allowing unscrupulous employers to hire illegals and pay them less than minimum or comparable wages while putting them into working conditions that no citizen or legal immigrant would tolerate?

Brian Ambrose, who is an analyst in the Murrieta city manager's office, is perfectly happy with the voiding of his city's E-Verify ordinance. Says Ambrose: "We have not received a single phone call [reporting illegal immigrant hiring]--we did not believe there was ever a problem with illegal immigration here in Murrieta." Who is this mysterious "we?" The city manager system frequently ends up with the city manager's office being at odds with both the citizens of the city involved, and often misguiding the city councils which pass the ordinances. Concurrence is not causation. A lack of phone calls could mean a great many things, including the likelihood that illegal immigrants facing E-Verify knew the jig was up and it was time to get out of Dodge before they got caught.

So now, it's up to Congress. The left won't like it, but if the bill requiring E-Verify nationwide is passed, they can't complain that the states are interfering with the fed's sole power over immigration matters. Not unexpectedly, the E-Verify bill in the House of Representatives is being advanced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). But I take pride in pointing out that the former mayor of Simi Valley and now longtime Republican Representative Elton Gallegly of California is the co-sponsor.

California Does It Again

View Detail

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

If you haven't seen it yet, my latest article is up at Big Hollywood (Click Me).

Sometimes it’s amazing how daft leftists can be. We spent more money than we could afford and now we’re broke? How did that happen?! We tax rich people and they send their money overseas. Nobody could have seen that coming!! We let criminals out of jail and somehow the crime rate soars?! How? Now liberals have discovered that massive immigration depresses wages. Ya think?

While Britain’s Labour Party was in power between 1997 and 2010, they threw open the immigration doors to let pretty much anyone who wanted into Britain into the country. Part of this had to do with new European Union rules which allowed free movement from Eastern Europe and part of it was leftist political correctness which sought to de-British Britain.

To give you a sense of how open the doors got, consider these figures:

● Between 1980-1991, the UK lost an average of 42,000 people each year.
● Between 1992-1995, the UK gained 9,200 immigrants per year.
● Between 1996 and 2010, under Labor, the UK gained 178,000 per year.

A couple weeks ago, a report was released, which had been commissioned by Labor when it was in power and then suppressed, because Labour didn’t like its conclusions. In fact, they ran around telling the public the exact opposite of what the report found. But now the truth has come out.

According to this report, this wave of immigrants flooding Britain depressed British wage and “undercut” British workers. You don’t say?! It was so bad in fact, the Labour Party has had to admit Labour “got it wrong” on immigration and concedes this “had a big effect on people in Britain.” Great. . . now explain why you kept lying about it?

But can they seriously claim they had no idea this would happen? Assume you make widgets and you need a new worker. In Room A, there are two potential employees. . . they look surly. In Room B, there are 500 potential employees. Do you think you will end up paying more if you hire from Room A or Room B? It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Yet, somehow it was never obvious to liberals that flooding Britain with workers, i.e. turning Britain’s labor market from Room A into Room B, would have a negative effect on the workers already in the country? How stupid do you need to be not to see that coming? Oh, that’s right, liberals don’t think about the future, they assume there are no unintended consequences.

Britain has shown that the consequence of importing a ton of labor are very clear. It will increase the competition for jobs, which will result in wages being depressed because there are more people bidding for the same number of jobs.

Now let's look at America. We are letting people in at three times the rate the British were when they “got it wrong”. . . we are letting enough people into this country every year to populate Denver, Colorado. That’s unsustainable.

The Democrats support this because they think these immigrants will vote Democrat, which will overcome the white flight their party has experienced. But what do they think the effect will be on the wages of blacks, Hispanics and uneducated whites.... the very groups the Democrats claim to want to help? The fools currently squatting outside Wall Street want this too (check out Bev’s article on their list of demands). Those idiots want both (1) a hike in wages and (2) open borders. But of course, those are contradictory demands because once you open the borders, wages will crash. Not surprisingly, Big Business wants this too because it keeps their costs down.

Talk about an unholy alliance!

I'm all for immigration, but there need to be limits. Clearly, three times the British level is too much.

If you haven't seen it yet, my latest article is up at Big Hollywood (Click Me).

Sometimes it’s amazing how daft leftists can be. We spent more money than we could afford and now we’re broke? How did that happen?! We tax rich people and they send their money overseas. Nobody could have seen that coming!! We let criminals out of jail and somehow the crime rate soars?! How? Now liberals have discovered that massive immigration depresses wages. Ya think?

While Britain’s Labour Party was in power between 1997 and 2010, they threw open the immigration doors to let pretty much anyone who wanted into Britain into the country. Part of this had to do with new European Union rules which allowed free movement from Eastern Europe and part of it was leftist political correctness which sought to de-British Britain.

To give you a sense of how open the doors got, consider these figures:

● Between 1980-1991, the UK lost an average of 42,000 people each year.
● Between 1992-1995, the UK gained 9,200 immigrants per year.
● Between 1996 and 2010, under Labor, the UK gained 178,000 per year.

A couple weeks ago, a report was released, which had been commissioned by Labor when it was in power and then suppressed, because Labour didn’t like its conclusions. In fact, they ran around telling the public the exact opposite of what the report found. But now the truth has come out.

According to this report, this wave of immigrants flooding Britain depressed British wage and “undercut” British workers. You don’t say?! It was so bad in fact, the Labour Party has had to admit Labour “got it wrong” on immigration and concedes this “had a big effect on people in Britain.” Great. . . now explain why you kept lying about it?

But can they seriously claim they had no idea this would happen? Assume you make widgets and you need a new worker. In Room A, there are two potential employees. . . they look surly. In Room B, there are 500 potential employees. Do you think you will end up paying more if you hire from Room A or Room B? It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Yet, somehow it was never obvious to liberals that flooding Britain with workers, i.e. turning Britain’s labor market from Room A into Room B, would have a negative effect on the workers already in the country? How stupid do you need to be not to see that coming? Oh, that’s right, liberals don’t think about the future, they assume there are no unintended consequences.

Britain has shown that the consequence of importing a ton of labor are very clear. It will increase the competition for jobs, which will result in wages being depressed because there are more people bidding for the same number of jobs.

Now let's look at America. We are letting people in at three times the rate the British were when they “got it wrong”. . . we are letting enough people into this country every year to populate Denver, Colorado. That’s unsustainable.

The Democrats support this because they think these immigrants will vote Democrat, which will overcome the white flight their party has experienced. But what do they think the effect will be on the wages of blacks, Hispanics and uneducated whites.... the very groups the Democrats claim to want to help? The fools currently squatting outside Wall Street want this too (check out Bev’s article on their list of demands). Those idiots want both (1) a hike in wages and (2) open borders. But of course, those are contradictory demands because once you open the borders, wages will crash. Not surprisingly, Big Business wants this too because it keeps their costs down.

Talk about an unholy alliance!

I'm all for immigration, but there need to be limits. Clearly, three times the British level is too much.

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

View Detail

Did Aliens Take All The Aliens?

Did Aliens Take All The Aliens?

Omigod! The entire Hispanic population of Albertville, Alabama has disappeared overnight. Streets in Hispanic neighborhoods all over the state are empty. What could have happened? In order to find out, I consulted the New York Times. I now know it wasn't space aliens who absconded with the earthly aliens after all. It was the Hispanic Rapture.

In the wake of a federal court decision upholding Alabama's tough new immigration arrest, detention and reporting statute, Times reporter Clay Waters rushed to Alabama to say good-bye to his Hispanic immigrant friends, only to discover that they had all disappeared before he could get there. Says Waters: "In certain neighborhoods the streets are uncommonly quiet, like the aftermath of some sort of rapture."

Waters reports that "the vanishing began on Wednesday night (after the court decision), the most frightened families packing up their their cars as they heard the news." And these were not insubstantial Hispanics who were vanishing. Waters goes on to say: "They left behind mobile homes, sold fully furnished for a thousand dollars or even less. Or they just closed up and, in a gesture of optimism, left the keys with a neighbor. Dogs were fed one last time; if no home could be found, they were simply unleashed."

(Give me a moment to stop sobbing over this tragedy, and then I will choke back the tears and continue writing)

It's a good thing God knew in advance what the court decision would be. That way, He could cause the Hispanics to vanish before the law enforcement agencies could arrive. Oh, the humanity! Where God has plopped them down, Waters can't say. "Two, five, ten years of living here, and then gone, to Tennessee, Illinois, Oregon, Florida, Arkansas, Mexico--who knows? Anywhere but Alabama." Now I'm not on personal speaking terms with God, but I did notice that overnight the Hispanic population of Los Angeles increased by several hundred thousand, so maybe He transported them to California.

In Albertville alone, 123 Hispanic students did not show up for school the next day. A local real estate agent reported that his Hispanic occupancy had suddenly dropped by twenty-five percent, and might drop further. Waters did not report that the number of Democratic voters throughout the state had declined in approximately the same numbers as the vanishing Hispanics. Coincidence?

Says Waters: "Near the plant that is the largest employer in town, in the Hispanic neighborhoods, it is hard to differentiate the silence of the workday, the silence of abandonment, or the silence of paralyzing fear." Waters is apparently unaware that it's also hard to differentiate between purple prose and plain bulls--t.

Perhaps Waters will do a followup article in which he breathlessly describes how he found Hispanics all over town who had mysteriously not been taken up in the rapture. Why were only some of the Hispanics taken, and the others left behind to go on with their lives as usual? Perhaps it will turn out that it has something to do with how the remaining Hispanics got here in the first place. Ya think?

Omigod! The entire Hispanic population of Albertville, Alabama has disappeared overnight. Streets in Hispanic neighborhoods all over the state are empty. What could have happened? In order to find out, I consulted the New York Times. I now know it wasn't space aliens who absconded with the earthly aliens after all. It was the Hispanic Rapture.

In the wake of a federal court decision upholding Alabama's tough new immigration arrest, detention and reporting statute, Times reporter Clay Waters rushed to Alabama to say good-bye to his Hispanic immigrant friends, only to discover that they had all disappeared before he could get there. Says Waters: "In certain neighborhoods the streets are uncommonly quiet, like the aftermath of some sort of rapture."

Waters reports that "the vanishing began on Wednesday night (after the court decision), the most frightened families packing up their their cars as they heard the news." And these were not insubstantial Hispanics who were vanishing. Waters goes on to say: "They left behind mobile homes, sold fully furnished for a thousand dollars or even less. Or they just closed up and, in a gesture of optimism, left the keys with a neighbor. Dogs were fed one last time; if no home could be found, they were simply unleashed."

(Give me a moment to stop sobbing over this tragedy, and then I will choke back the tears and continue writing)

It's a good thing God knew in advance what the court decision would be. That way, He could cause the Hispanics to vanish before the law enforcement agencies could arrive. Oh, the humanity! Where God has plopped them down, Waters can't say. "Two, five, ten years of living here, and then gone, to Tennessee, Illinois, Oregon, Florida, Arkansas, Mexico--who knows? Anywhere but Alabama." Now I'm not on personal speaking terms with God, but I did notice that overnight the Hispanic population of Los Angeles increased by several hundred thousand, so maybe He transported them to California.

In Albertville alone, 123 Hispanic students did not show up for school the next day. A local real estate agent reported that his Hispanic occupancy had suddenly dropped by twenty-five percent, and might drop further. Waters did not report that the number of Democratic voters throughout the state had declined in approximately the same numbers as the vanishing Hispanics. Coincidence?

Says Waters: "Near the plant that is the largest employer in town, in the Hispanic neighborhoods, it is hard to differentiate the silence of the workday, the silence of abandonment, or the silence of paralyzing fear." Waters is apparently unaware that it's also hard to differentiate between purple prose and plain bulls--t.

Perhaps Waters will do a followup article in which he breathlessly describes how he found Hispanics all over town who had mysteriously not been taken up in the rapture. Why were only some of the Hispanics taken, and the others left behind to go on with their lives as usual? Perhaps it will turn out that it has something to do with how the remaining Hispanics got here in the first place. Ya think?

Did Aliens Take All The Aliens?

View Detail

When Is A Crime Not A Crime?

When Is A Crime Not A Crime?

When it's jaywalking illegal immigration. After all, jaywalking is an infraction. Sort of a crime, but not really. White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz recently compared the federal crime of illegal immigration to jaywalking. "If you were running the police department of any urban area in this country, you would spend more resources going after serious criminals than after jaywalkers."

I guess Munoz is telling us that illegal immigrants are unserious criminals. Until now, the usual simile was "it's like spitting on the sidewalk." But many people don't realize whey spitting on the sidewalk is a crime. It was the major cause of the spread of tuberculosis in the early twentieth century. Today, that curse is returning to our urban centers, largely from immigrants who have not been screened for communicable diseases (where's Ellis Island when we need it?).

There's also a sound reason for prosecuting jaywalking. It's dangerous. It gets pedestrians killed, often including children accompanying a jaywalking adult. It also has a tendency to cause traffic collisions as drivers are forced to make dangerous maneuvers to avoid hitting the jaywalkers. Every year, dozens of jaywalkers are killed and thousands injured. So maybe it's not such a small deal after all.

Apparently, Munoz has also never heard of James Q. Wilson's "broken windows syndrome." Mayor Rudy Giuliani did, and by prosecuting violators of the building and safety codes in New York City, he used the minor infraction of neighborhood nuisance to cut the rates of drug-dealing and gang murders dramatically. But comparing illegal immigration to jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, or even broken windows reduces a crime that has long term and vast effects on the essence of American citizenship and national security to a nullity. That's foolish and dangerous.

What is really odd about Munoz's speech is that she is not directly attacking the secure borders/deportation advocates. Her speech was actually in response to the latest amnesty initiative by her own boss. The Obama administration has already put a huge dent in the immigration and deportation process with its recently-instituted policy of suspending deportation proceedings for those not already convicted of serious crimes other than their initial illegal immigration. That action created an instant backlog of over 300,000 cases.

But Obama's action is clearly not enough to satisfy Munoz. She wants to make illegal immigration a slap-on-the wrist, go-and-sin-no-more infraction. Says Munoz: "We have 10 million, 11 million undocumented people in this country and it's abundantly clear to anybody who's paying attention that we're not going to deport that entire population." OK. So that means we should do nothing? The logistics of deporting that many people is indeed well-nigh impossible. But so what? Do we stop prosecuting crimes of all sorts simply because we can't prosecute them all? It's a fake argument.

Munoz will not be satisfied until illegal immigration is rendered legal by whatever means necessary. And she relies on the fact that our immigration laws are truly in need of reform. She just simply wants to eliminate all the enforcement provisions of current and future immigration law in order to establish a de facto open borders policy.

We'll never be able to deport all illegal immigrants. That's a reality. But we can sure deport a whole lot of them. And of course there should be exceptions. Off hand, I certainly support a fast track to citizenship for those illegals who arrived here illegally solely because their parents brought them with them, if they have served honorably in the American armed forces and have a clean criminal record after their arrival in the United States.

Munoz said: "But we also all understand that [the administration's executive action] doesn't solve our immigration problems. In order to do that, we need the Congress of the United States." Munoz is right about that--for all the wrong reasons.

When it's jaywalking illegal immigration. After all, jaywalking is an infraction. Sort of a crime, but not really. White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz recently compared the federal crime of illegal immigration to jaywalking. "If you were running the police department of any urban area in this country, you would spend more resources going after serious criminals than after jaywalkers."

I guess Munoz is telling us that illegal immigrants are unserious criminals. Until now, the usual simile was "it's like spitting on the sidewalk." But many people don't realize whey spitting on the sidewalk is a crime. It was the major cause of the spread of tuberculosis in the early twentieth century. Today, that curse is returning to our urban centers, largely from immigrants who have not been screened for communicable diseases (where's Ellis Island when we need it?).

There's also a sound reason for prosecuting jaywalking. It's dangerous. It gets pedestrians killed, often including children accompanying a jaywalking adult. It also has a tendency to cause traffic collisions as drivers are forced to make dangerous maneuvers to avoid hitting the jaywalkers. Every year, dozens of jaywalkers are killed and thousands injured. So maybe it's not such a small deal after all.

Apparently, Munoz has also never heard of James Q. Wilson's "broken windows syndrome." Mayor Rudy Giuliani did, and by prosecuting violators of the building and safety codes in New York City, he used the minor infraction of neighborhood nuisance to cut the rates of drug-dealing and gang murders dramatically. But comparing illegal immigration to jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, or even broken windows reduces a crime that has long term and vast effects on the essence of American citizenship and national security to a nullity. That's foolish and dangerous.

What is really odd about Munoz's speech is that she is not directly attacking the secure borders/deportation advocates. Her speech was actually in response to the latest amnesty initiative by her own boss. The Obama administration has already put a huge dent in the immigration and deportation process with its recently-instituted policy of suspending deportation proceedings for those not already convicted of serious crimes other than their initial illegal immigration. That action created an instant backlog of over 300,000 cases.

But Obama's action is clearly not enough to satisfy Munoz. She wants to make illegal immigration a slap-on-the wrist, go-and-sin-no-more infraction. Says Munoz: "We have 10 million, 11 million undocumented people in this country and it's abundantly clear to anybody who's paying attention that we're not going to deport that entire population." OK. So that means we should do nothing? The logistics of deporting that many people is indeed well-nigh impossible. But so what? Do we stop prosecuting crimes of all sorts simply because we can't prosecute them all? It's a fake argument.

Munoz will not be satisfied until illegal immigration is rendered legal by whatever means necessary. And she relies on the fact that our immigration laws are truly in need of reform. She just simply wants to eliminate all the enforcement provisions of current and future immigration law in order to establish a de facto open borders policy.

We'll never be able to deport all illegal immigrants. That's a reality. But we can sure deport a whole lot of them. And of course there should be exceptions. Off hand, I certainly support a fast track to citizenship for those illegals who arrived here illegally solely because their parents brought them with them, if they have served honorably in the American armed forces and have a clean criminal record after their arrival in the United States.

Munoz said: "But we also all understand that [the administration's executive action] doesn't solve our immigration problems. In order to do that, we need the Congress of the United States." Munoz is right about that--for all the wrong reasons.

When Is A Crime Not A Crime?

View Detail

Hilda Solis Saves The Illegal Laborers

Hilda Solis Saves The Illegal Laborers

The Obama administration is entirely uninterested in protecting the rights of most Americans, but when it comes to protecting the rights of illegal immigrant workers, they're johnny-on-the-spot. In fact, last week Labor Secretary Hilda Solis signed partnership agreements with a number of Latin American ambassadors to make sure the "rights" of their expatriates in the illegal labor market are fully protected.



We used to make agreements with foreign nations in the form of treaties, ratified by the Senate in accordance with the Constitution. But who needs treaties or the Constitution when you can have partnership agreements? Such agreements have been signed with the embassies of Mexico, Nicaragua and Guatemala. The new agreements have been made with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. Unlike treaties, which generally give and get from both sides, partnership agreements require no quid pro quo. We give, they get.



The agreements not only grant protections that are already in place as statutes and/or case law, but assures the ambassadors that the illegals will be guided to jobs, instructed on how to make maximum use of American labor law, and told how they can prevent "abuse" in the workplace. Most of all, Solis declares that these agreements are designed to protect "documented and undocumented workers" evenly under the law.



When leftist Democrats start talking about equal enforcement of the law, you know what is coming next is a complete distortion of the law. And Solis doesn't disappoint. All workers in America are already protected by volumes of statutory and case law. No employer, with or without these agreements, can violate the wage and safety rules legally. So why write these agreements at all?



Beside the obvious pandering to the Hispanic vote and the amnesty-now crowd, it's also a good way to draw the public's attention away from the real law. Nobody wants human rights abuses to go unnoticed, but employers who are criminals themselves can get away with it because of the ease of hiring so many illegals at poor wages and in poor working conditions. It isn't the law that's the problem, it's the lack of enforcement of laws already on the books. Barack Obama just signed an executive order stalling deportation for about 300,000 illegals



Solis says that "migrant workers have a right to a legal wage." Yes, they do, if they're here legally and have work permits. But the Immigration and Nationality Act says very clearly that "employers may hire only persons who may legally work in the United States." They're not entitled to any wage if they're here illegally. "The Act protects both U.S. citizens, and foreign nationals who are here with legal work visas from discrimination in hiring or discharge on the basis of national origin and citizenship." That last sentence is on the Department of Labor website. Do you see anything in the Act about illegal immigrants working illegally?



Still, the United States is a generous nation. We do apply the same law to anyone within our legal jurisdiction, and that includes illegal immigrants, at least until they're identified and deported (small chance). Once an employer, knowingly or unknowingly, hires an illegal, that worker is entitled to the same rights as anyone else. No new law or partnership agreement is necessary to accomplish that goal.



So what Solis is attempting to do has two major elements. First, she wants to make it very clear that illegal immigrants are not only welcome, but they're entitled to good treatment and longevity on the job so that they can use their lengthy stay and work record later when the Future Democrats of America come to call. Oh, and then there are the lawsuits for back wages, harassment, and discrimination.



Second, she is making it clear that the United States is ready, willing and able to accommodate a wave of immigration from countries that are utter failures at doing what is necessary to create and encourage employment in their own sorry nations. All of this is being done without even an insincere pledge from the other nations that they will at least attempt to help stem the tide of emigration.



Solis also slipped and gave out another reason for her deep and abiding concern for the poor benighted illegal workers. Says Solis: "In many cases, taxes aren't being appropriately paid, those taxes should go into our US Treasury, and if everyone is brought out of the shadow in that manner, then we'll have more assistance to protect people." Aha! Get better wages for the illegals, identify the offending employers, and there will be more money for government programs. How did I miss that obvious jewel the first time around? Maybe some of that money that is being sent out of the United States by illegals should also go into the US Treasury.



And then the ultimate insult from Solis and the ambassadors. The agreements also promise that the Labor Department will work closely with the embassies and consulates to enforce OSHA and Wage/Hour provisions in American law. That's just what we need. Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic "assisting" us in enforcing our laws.



Also assisting the foreign governments in deciding how to enforce American law will be the thuggish SEIU and the reprehensible United Food and Commercial Workers Union, both of which were in attendance at the signing ceremony. The whole ceremony was timed to coincide with Labor Rights Week, and that's a traditional American thing, isn't it? Well, no. It was started in 2009 by the Mexican consulate, and as Solis says: "The Labor Department works in conjunction with fifty Mexican consulates across the nation to bring US labor law education to migrant workers and their employers."



While signing the agreements that give away more American sovereignty, Solis spoke Spanish exclusively at the event. The theme of Labor Rights Week this year is the plight of migrant women in the workplace. Solis invoked the name of that great Spanish-speaker, Cinco de Cuatro Obama by saying (in Spanish, of course): "On behalf of President Barack Obama, we stand together to denounce hatred, violence, and prejudice and recommit ourselves to protecting migrant women in the American workplace." Well, who wouldn't want to get behind that noble cause?



One final note. Solis, Obama and the whole illegal immigrant claque are so pleased with these agreements that Solis is headed off to Asia next month to sign more of them.

The Obama administration is entirely uninterested in protecting the rights of most Americans, but when it comes to protecting the rights of illegal immigrant workers, they're johnny-on-the-spot. In fact, last week Labor Secretary Hilda Solis signed partnership agreements with a number of Latin American ambassadors to make sure the "rights" of their expatriates in the illegal labor market are fully protected.



We used to make agreements with foreign nations in the form of treaties, ratified by the Senate in accordance with the Constitution. But who needs treaties or the Constitution when you can have partnership agreements? Such agreements have been signed with the embassies of Mexico, Nicaragua and Guatemala. The new agreements have been made with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. Unlike treaties, which generally give and get from both sides, partnership agreements require no quid pro quo. We give, they get.



The agreements not only grant protections that are already in place as statutes and/or case law, but assures the ambassadors that the illegals will be guided to jobs, instructed on how to make maximum use of American labor law, and told how they can prevent "abuse" in the workplace. Most of all, Solis declares that these agreements are designed to protect "documented and undocumented workers" evenly under the law.



When leftist Democrats start talking about equal enforcement of the law, you know what is coming next is a complete distortion of the law. And Solis doesn't disappoint. All workers in America are already protected by volumes of statutory and case law. No employer, with or without these agreements, can violate the wage and safety rules legally. So why write these agreements at all?



Beside the obvious pandering to the Hispanic vote and the amnesty-now crowd, it's also a good way to draw the public's attention away from the real law. Nobody wants human rights abuses to go unnoticed, but employers who are criminals themselves can get away with it because of the ease of hiring so many illegals at poor wages and in poor working conditions. It isn't the law that's the problem, it's the lack of enforcement of laws already on the books. Barack Obama just signed an executive order stalling deportation for about 300,000 illegals



Solis says that "migrant workers have a right to a legal wage." Yes, they do, if they're here legally and have work permits. But the Immigration and Nationality Act says very clearly that "employers may hire only persons who may legally work in the United States." They're not entitled to any wage if they're here illegally. "The Act protects both U.S. citizens, and foreign nationals who are here with legal work visas from discrimination in hiring or discharge on the basis of national origin and citizenship." That last sentence is on the Department of Labor website. Do you see anything in the Act about illegal immigrants working illegally?



Still, the United States is a generous nation. We do apply the same law to anyone within our legal jurisdiction, and that includes illegal immigrants, at least until they're identified and deported (small chance). Once an employer, knowingly or unknowingly, hires an illegal, that worker is entitled to the same rights as anyone else. No new law or partnership agreement is necessary to accomplish that goal.



So what Solis is attempting to do has two major elements. First, she wants to make it very clear that illegal immigrants are not only welcome, but they're entitled to good treatment and longevity on the job so that they can use their lengthy stay and work record later when the Future Democrats of America come to call. Oh, and then there are the lawsuits for back wages, harassment, and discrimination.



Second, she is making it clear that the United States is ready, willing and able to accommodate a wave of immigration from countries that are utter failures at doing what is necessary to create and encourage employment in their own sorry nations. All of this is being done without even an insincere pledge from the other nations that they will at least attempt to help stem the tide of emigration.



Solis also slipped and gave out another reason for her deep and abiding concern for the poor benighted illegal workers. Says Solis: "In many cases, taxes aren't being appropriately paid, those taxes should go into our US Treasury, and if everyone is brought out of the shadow in that manner, then we'll have more assistance to protect people." Aha! Get better wages for the illegals, identify the offending employers, and there will be more money for government programs. How did I miss that obvious jewel the first time around? Maybe some of that money that is being sent out of the United States by illegals should also go into the US Treasury.



And then the ultimate insult from Solis and the ambassadors. The agreements also promise that the Labor Department will work closely with the embassies and consulates to enforce OSHA and Wage/Hour provisions in American law. That's just what we need. Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic "assisting" us in enforcing our laws.



Also assisting the foreign governments in deciding how to enforce American law will be the thuggish SEIU and the reprehensible United Food and Commercial Workers Union, both of which were in attendance at the signing ceremony. The whole ceremony was timed to coincide with Labor Rights Week, and that's a traditional American thing, isn't it? Well, no. It was started in 2009 by the Mexican consulate, and as Solis says: "The Labor Department works in conjunction with fifty Mexican consulates across the nation to bring US labor law education to migrant workers and their employers."



While signing the agreements that give away more American sovereignty, Solis spoke Spanish exclusively at the event. The theme of Labor Rights Week this year is the plight of migrant women in the workplace. Solis invoked the name of that great Spanish-speaker, Cinco de Cuatro Obama by saying (in Spanish, of course): "On behalf of President Barack Obama, we stand together to denounce hatred, violence, and prejudice and recommit ourselves to protecting migrant women in the American workplace." Well, who wouldn't want to get behind that noble cause?



One final note. Solis, Obama and the whole illegal immigrant claque are so pleased with these agreements that Solis is headed off to Asia next month to sign more of them.

Hilda Solis Saves The Illegal Laborers

View Detail

How Did I Miss His Call?

How Did I Miss His Call?

We all know that Barack Obama, head of the Obama family in America, is always concerned about the welfare of his extended family. He is also very much sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants. So he must have been wondering why he never received a call from Onyango Obama, aka "Uncle Omar."



You see, last Wednesday Uncle Omar nearly rammed his SUV into a Framingham, Massachusetts police vehicle. Subsequently, Uncle Omar was charged with several violations of the law, including driving while intoxicated. I guess that dispels the rumor that the Obamas are all Muslims, since the Prophet forbids the use of intoxicating liquors. Either that or Uncle Omar is a lapsed Muslim.



There must have been a glitch somewhere. When the Framingham police asked Uncle Omar if he wanted to make his phone call, he replied "I think I will call the White House." He was led off to a phone bank to make the call, but procedure allows the arrestee to make the call in private. We may never know for sure whether he did indeed try to make that call to the White House.



Assuming he did, and somehow failed, that's too bad for Uncle Omar. After all, the Obama pater familias is the most powerful man in the western world, and also retains the most powerful law firm in America, the Department of Justice. Surely if he had been able to get through, the entire matter would have been dismissed, while at the same time a lawsuit would have been filed by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department against Framingham for violating the rights of a black man who is also an illegal immigrant. Another example of racial/ethnic/immigrant profiling.



The thread of discovery of Uncle Omar's entry into the United States has been a bit tortuous. During the 2008 campaign, an investigative reporter for a British newspaper did some digging and found the future President's "Aunt Zeituni" living illegally in Boston. That led to a search for other possible Obama relatives living in the US illegally. One tip came from Barack's own book Dreams From My Father. Describing his visitation with his relatives in Kenya, the future President notes that they told him stories of family members who had emigrated to the West and were never heard from again, "like our Uncle Omar, in Boston. They've been lost, you see."



Although Uncle Omar was not found to be living with Aunt Zeituni, there was a relationship and correspondence. It eventually led to the discovery of Uncle Omar in the Boston area. He was living there under the name O. Onyango Obama, though he has come to use the name Obama Onyango. If that's an attempt at subterfuge, it's a pretty poor one. When informed of all this, candidate Barack replied "Oh, really?" Not "I already knew that," or "As President, I'll enforce immigration law regardless of whom it may affect." Just a simple non sequitur. Barack's recent executive order skirting Congress and the Constitution stalling 300,000 deportation cases explains the lack of clarity in his earlier response to questions about his relatives living in the US illegally.



Uncle Omar is a lucky man. If this were a country run by the rule of law instead of Presidential whim, Uncle Omar would be tried, possibly convicted, then turned over to immigration authorities for deportation. But the Mayor of Boston and the Governor of Massachusetts have formally declared that they will ignore federal law and report illegal immigrants to the feds only if they are convicted of serious felonies. It wouldn't matter if they did comply, since Barack has now ordered exactly the same thing, and he controls the immigration services.



I suppose if Uncle Omar had managed to kill an officer in the patrol car he almost hit, somebody might have reported him to ICE, but nothing much would be done anyway, so it would be an exercise in futility.



It appears that Uncle Omar has been living most of his life in America on the dole. But illegal longevity in the US is now a plus for immigrants who have managed to avoid killing anyone while they are here. I think it's time for Barack to use his power appropriately, and find Uncle Omar a job. He'd have to consult with Attorney General Holder, but I think there are openings for poll watchers in Philadelphia.

We all know that Barack Obama, head of the Obama family in America, is always concerned about the welfare of his extended family. He is also very much sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants. So he must have been wondering why he never received a call from Onyango Obama, aka "Uncle Omar."



You see, last Wednesday Uncle Omar nearly rammed his SUV into a Framingham, Massachusetts police vehicle. Subsequently, Uncle Omar was charged with several violations of the law, including driving while intoxicated. I guess that dispels the rumor that the Obamas are all Muslims, since the Prophet forbids the use of intoxicating liquors. Either that or Uncle Omar is a lapsed Muslim.



There must have been a glitch somewhere. When the Framingham police asked Uncle Omar if he wanted to make his phone call, he replied "I think I will call the White House." He was led off to a phone bank to make the call, but procedure allows the arrestee to make the call in private. We may never know for sure whether he did indeed try to make that call to the White House.



Assuming he did, and somehow failed, that's too bad for Uncle Omar. After all, the Obama pater familias is the most powerful man in the western world, and also retains the most powerful law firm in America, the Department of Justice. Surely if he had been able to get through, the entire matter would have been dismissed, while at the same time a lawsuit would have been filed by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department against Framingham for violating the rights of a black man who is also an illegal immigrant. Another example of racial/ethnic/immigrant profiling.



The thread of discovery of Uncle Omar's entry into the United States has been a bit tortuous. During the 2008 campaign, an investigative reporter for a British newspaper did some digging and found the future President's "Aunt Zeituni" living illegally in Boston. That led to a search for other possible Obama relatives living in the US illegally. One tip came from Barack's own book Dreams From My Father. Describing his visitation with his relatives in Kenya, the future President notes that they told him stories of family members who had emigrated to the West and were never heard from again, "like our Uncle Omar, in Boston. They've been lost, you see."



Although Uncle Omar was not found to be living with Aunt Zeituni, there was a relationship and correspondence. It eventually led to the discovery of Uncle Omar in the Boston area. He was living there under the name O. Onyango Obama, though he has come to use the name Obama Onyango. If that's an attempt at subterfuge, it's a pretty poor one. When informed of all this, candidate Barack replied "Oh, really?" Not "I already knew that," or "As President, I'll enforce immigration law regardless of whom it may affect." Just a simple non sequitur. Barack's recent executive order skirting Congress and the Constitution stalling 300,000 deportation cases explains the lack of clarity in his earlier response to questions about his relatives living in the US illegally.



Uncle Omar is a lucky man. If this were a country run by the rule of law instead of Presidential whim, Uncle Omar would be tried, possibly convicted, then turned over to immigration authorities for deportation. But the Mayor of Boston and the Governor of Massachusetts have formally declared that they will ignore federal law and report illegal immigrants to the feds only if they are convicted of serious felonies. It wouldn't matter if they did comply, since Barack has now ordered exactly the same thing, and he controls the immigration services.



I suppose if Uncle Omar had managed to kill an officer in the patrol car he almost hit, somebody might have reported him to ICE, but nothing much would be done anyway, so it would be an exercise in futility.



It appears that Uncle Omar has been living most of his life in America on the dole. But illegal longevity in the US is now a plus for immigrants who have managed to avoid killing anyone while they are here. I think it's time for Barack to use his power appropriately, and find Uncle Omar a job. He'd have to consult with Attorney General Holder, but I think there are openings for poll watchers in Philadelphia.

How Did I Miss His Call?

View Detail

Future Democrats Of America

Future Democrats Of America

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Future Democrats Of America

View Detail